About your Search

20121204
20121204
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
as well. so the obama administration is so far out there, that what the republicans are doing is pointing out how reasonable they are, taking bowles' idea, i see he's playing democrat partisan today -- >> part of that is actually putting revenue on the table which speaker boehner has said multiple times he's open to doing, that includes closing loopholes and ending deductions. not words that are political kryptoni kryptonite. for the republican party that has stoked the eyre on the ends of the spectrum including erick erickson they said this the gop selling out. do you agree with that or not? >> not at this point. we were in this point two years ago when the same things were discussed with obama during the debt ceiling increase and at the end of the day, we ended up with $2.5 trillion in spending savings and not a dollar of tax increase. why? because obama overplayed his hand. he's doing it again. just as he did in 2008. he thought the country had given him a blank sheet of paper to work on. he did the stimulus spending. he went from 70% support down to below 50% and lost the house. now h
is the question of the tax cuts expiring. and for the obama administration, the question is, is it in their interest to trade tax cuts for the wealthy? increase for the wealthy for raising the age for eligibility for medicare, for example. i'm not sure that that's a trade that they are eager to make immediately. >> let me show you the side by side comparison. the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and republicans want to cap the same deductions for the rich but republicans want to change the age to 67 and change the way they calculate social security payments. i wonder, though, when we look at these numbers, are we that far apart in. >> i think they are definitely rather far aare part at this moment in time. yeah, absolutely. >> so there are so many ways that any of this could affect the average tack payer, obviously if taxes go up. but what about funding to states and localities. i know that one of the things that they are concerned about is that when you make cuts, that essentially those cuts are going to come on their budgets. what could happen in a meeting like thi
when the obama administration got belarus to give up their highly enriched uranium too. their stockpile of the material was taken away and secured by the united states. the guy in kazakhstan, the guy who named a national holiday in his own honor, he agreed to give up a portion of his country's highly-enriched uranium and all the risk that goes with it. it's remarkable that coup tries that used to be part of a soviet union, these countries agreed to give up their nuclear weapons and that they also agreed to give up material used to make nuclear weapons. so while there are a lot of things to worry about with belarus, we can worry a little less about their stockpile because they let us lock some of it up. american policy that makes this a priority is now more than 20 years old. it goes back to 1992. it's the cooperative threat reduction program. it's named after the senator sam nun and richard lugar. this is one of the things that our government does. you may remember me wearing a funny outfit when we traveled to mexico while they were giving up the last of their jury rain yum. working wit
. >> that's from a new video by the obama administration designed to get the public on the president's side of this tax fight. the president took to twitter today to answer questions about the fiscal cliff. one person asked whether deductions for homeowners are at risk to which the president responded, breaks for middle class important for families and economy. if top rates don't go up, danger that middle class deductions get hit. signed "bo." yesterday house speaker john boehner said this on fox news. >> listen, nobody want to go over the cliff. that's why the day after the election i tried to speed this process up by making a concession to put revenues on the table. it's unfortunate that the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. you know, the president's idea of a negotiation is, roll over and do what i ask. >> and on "meet the press" yesterday grover tried to change america's mind about who to blame if we do go off the cliff. >> tea party 2 is going to dwarf tea party one if obama pushes us off the cliff. let's not pretend who's pushing us offer the cliff. >> but con
, and there are fears within the obama administration that president assad may be on the verge of panicking because he looks like he's becoming desperate. over the past couple of days intelligence sources reported that somebody in the regime had told the chemical weapons corps to be prepared. at the same time there was a flurry of renewed activity at a number of the chemical wep sites in and around the damascus area indicating to u.s. officials that it appeared at least the syrians were at least preparing to get ready to mix the precursor chemicals that would enable it to weaponize the artillery shells with deadly nerve gas. i can tell you today despite all these warning signs, tamron, u.s. officials are reporting, number one, that there's still no sign that these precursor chemicals have been moved. number two, there has been no sign that any of them have been weaponized, the artillery shells, and three, it looks like at least that people are just in the preparation stage just in case there should be an order to resort to chemical weapons. so far we're far from that according to u.s. officials, tamro
to a kr credible location. >> and the obama administration is saying what the united nations did unilaterally was a setback. do you agree with that? the body i represent is split. some people are in favor of the u.s. vote. the truth of it, the only thing that will work to deliver a palestinian state side-by-side with a secure state of israel is peace. as you can see we have a chance now. the president has been re-elected. i know he's deeply personally committed to this and we just have to regrip it, i'm afraid. >> what's gone wrong? >> it's partly because there's so much turmoil in the region right now. it's how each side views its own prospects. >> how would you characterize a credible negotiation given the fact as long as we've been alive there's been these problems that keep erupting and never, ever get solved? we've been trying for 20, 30 years. it was 50, 60 years before we got one that worked. and actually back in the year 2000, and again in 2008, you have no option in the end. the only thing that works is to make it credible if we shape the negotiations. give it some shape
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)